Gregs Wants To Argue Section 8

[GregS]

XXXXX, and it is potentially very costly. Under the registry, per section 4 of the law, only one caregiver is permitted.XXXXX, Under section 8 you would, if found out, have to prove in court that you are compliant. Courtrooms are not fun places, or so we've heard. If there is a compelling reason to step outside the registry, you would want to measure the risk. Our position is that patients should register and follow the requirements of section 4. You will need to read the law carefully. That said, sometimes people end up in court even after having dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's. We are presently working on providing more reliable methods to stay  the hell out of jail.

Edited November 12, 2013 by mibrains

[mibrains]

. Section  8 of the same law has no restrictions on the number of patients a caregiver can have or the number of caregivers a patient can have

 

greg,

 

it is morally irresponsible for you to make this statement.

 

particularly to someone who is admittedly new and has not read through the information and pages of arguments.

[GregS]

greg,

 

it is morally irresponsible for you to make this statement.

 

particularly to someone who is admittedly new and has not read through the information and pages of arguments.

Then perhaps the law should be amended to reflect that. I think it irresponsible to fail to answer fully and truthfully. Are we dealing with children here? I find ridiculous censorship especially repugnant in the moral sense.

Edited November 12, 2013 by GregS

[mibrains]

Greg

the actions of the courts reflect that.

 

a new person may not even know what section 4 or section 8 is.

 

we will not be telling people bad advice around these boards..  even if you quantify and define your perspective.

 

period.

[GregS]

The courts are corrupt. That is  not news. The proper caveats were plainly stated. Church Lady would be disappointed if we were to fail in our duty to be truthful.

[trichcycler]

GregS.

 

I've never known of anyone to see the legal ability of registering more than one caregiver, or a caregiver allowed to have more than five patients. Could you fodder me

with THAT specific area of registration? When I sign the agreement with the state I agree to only cg for five patients explicitly for example

 

peaceout

 

spelling edit,

Edited November 12, 2013 by grassmatch

[GregS]

the Michigan Supreme court said in Mcqueen that you are protected as a patient to acquire your cannabis from any source and you as a patient are protected (so long as it is solely to treat your medical condition).

 

when looking for a caregiver i would recommend you ask them lots of questions.

 

a good caregiver will answer all your questions happily and explain anything you need help with. 

 

ask them if they supply only there 5 patients or less or if they supply a dispensary or make any medibles.

 

the COA ruled in carruthers that the offending brownies were made with a concentrated cannabis extract and those are not considered usable cannabis according to the act.  the act protects cannabis directly that is defined as "dry usable flowers and leaves"

 

there is a lot of contention about that definition currently in the legal system as well as out here in internetland.

 

- bottom line -

 

as a patient do not fear acquiring or using cannabis to treat your condition.

 

also do not let anyone make a copy of your card or photo ID unless you are signing up with them for a state level legally connected contractual agreement with LARA.

Your facts are not entirely correct. The court has not ruled, unless I missed something, that patients can acquire from any source. That has been widely regarded as true since the inception of the law. To my knowledge that has never been in question. If I did miss it, will you please give me the case?

[mibrains]

do you see the finality of your statement that i highlighted in red?

 

do you understand a new patient seeking advice may not understand any of your quantifying statements and stop reading after your period.

 

do not make plain statements that are in direct contradiction to the MMMA goals.

 

A Patient can only register ONE caregiver.

 

period.

 

question was asked and answered.

 

please do not confuse people with bad statements that you cannot prove.

 

it stops right here my friend.

 

any more problems or issues with it and we will take it behind the scenes and i guarantee you wont like me when i am in private and speaking bluntly about this issue.  the issue of misinformation.

[GregS]

That the MMMA withholds information regarding the full protection of the law from patients and caregivers is plain. It is repugnant that anyone would be so duplicitous, claiming authority in advocating the law and then refusing to do just that. Sec. 8 is not the dirty little secret you insist. It is a necessary and powerful part of the law, and every bit as authoritative as any other. It is a disservice to state otherwise.

Edited November 12, 2013 by GregS

[mibrains]

Your facts are not entirely correct. The court has not ruled, unless I missed something, that patients can acquire from any source. That has been widely regarded as true since the inception of the law. To my knowledge that has never been in question. If I did miss it, will you please give me the case?

 

http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/Clerks/Recent%20Opinions/12-13-Term-Opinions/143824%20Opinion.pdf

 

in the SC decision.. directly cut and paste.

 

you may want to read it again from the top.

 

 

 

60

Of course, a registered qualifying patient who acquires marijuana—whether from

another registered qualifying patient or even from someone

who is not entitled to possess marijuana—to alleviate his own condition can still receive

immunity from arrest,prosecution, or penalty because the § 4(d) presumption cannot be rebutted on that basis.

In this sense, § 4 immunity is asymmetric: it allows a registered qualifying patient to

obtain marijuana for his own medical use but does not allow him to transfer marijuana for

another registered qualifying patient’s use.

 

Section 4 creates a personal right and protection for a registered qualifying patient’s medical use of marijuana, but that right is

limited to medical use that has the purpose of alleviating that patient’s own debilitating medical condition or symptoms.

Edited November 12, 2013 by mibrains

[mibrains]

thats such baloney.

 

you cannot back up anything you are saying with actual fact Greg.  please stop.

 

we withhold NOTHING. 

 

you wanna talk about your dirty little secret... and your self proclaimed section 8 primary defense then start a thread already LIKE YOUR SUPPOSED TO and quit spreading misinformation in other peoples threads.

 

if people are interested in your opinion they will come there and read it.

 

you MAY NOT MAKE STATEMENTS like i highlighted in red on our boards.

 

it is dangerous and wrong and i wont stand for it.

 

last warning.

[GregS]

That is not a ruling, but the observation of widely regarded law that was not in question in the case.

[mibrains]

there..

 

here is your place.

 

speak your mind.

[GregS]

Have it your way. There remains the fact that we are all big people and responsible to do our own due diligence in matters of law. Ignoring it won't make it go away. Being in the know when it becomes necessary is essential.

 

When I was a child I thought as a child. I spoke as a child. I understood as a child. But when I became a man I put away childish things. My children were raised to face the world in all its beauty and ugliness. They no longer watch Sesame Street, but my grandkids sure do. When they are grown they will be responsible and aware. Anything less is leaving them at the hands of crazy and evil people, some who would tell them half truths.

 

Good morning Captain

[mibrains]

says right there in the ruling.

 

it is a right.

 

a personal right.

 

and its not an "observation" when it is a footnote in a SUPREME COURT ruling.

 

it is way more than that.

[GregS]

Why not just put up the four threads, containing several hundred posts, that were censored. I don't want to duplicate the effort again. It is a foregone conclusion that it would only be censored like the rest.

[mibrains]

it was censored when personal attacks happened or when it got off topic in someone else's thread.

 

no personal attacks

 

and this is your topic.

 

do as you wish.

 

if people want your form for protection they can come here and discuss it.

 

or if you want to discuss all the gazillion ideas that are not specifically addressed in section 4 and MAY be plausible under section 8 then this is your spot to do so..

 

i have told you before and i will say it again... i am one of the most flexible people out here when it comes to my beliefs.

 

i will entertain any argument until i get bored or it becomes futile.

[GregS]

GregS.

 

I've never known of anyone to see the legal ability of registering more than one caregiver, or a caregiver allowed to have more than five patients. Could you fodder me

with THAT specific area of registration? When I sign the agreement with the state I agree to only cg for five patients explicitly for example

 

peaceout

 

spelling edit,

The point is that it is not a part of the registration rules. It instead appears in sec. 8. You will find nothing that limits those numbers. If you can, I am all ears:

 

Initiated Law 1 of 2008

 

333.26428 Defenses.

 

 

8. Affirmative Defense and Dismissal for Medical Marihuana.

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in section 7(b), a patient and a patient's primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marihuana, and this defense shall be presumed valid where the evidence shows that:

 

(1) A physician has stated that, in the physician's professional opinion, after having completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition;

 

(2) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were collectively in possession of a quantity of marihuana that was not more than was reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana for the purpose of treating or alleviating the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition; and

 

(3) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were engaged in the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition.

 

(b) A person may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana in a motion to dismiss, and the charges shall be dismissed following an evidentiary hearing where the person shows the elements listed in subsection (a).

 

© If a patient or a patient's primary caregiver demonstrates the patient's medical purpose for using marihuana pursuant to this section, the patient and the patient's primary caregiver shall not be subject to the following for the patient's medical use of marihuana:

 

(1) disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau; or

(2) forfeiture of any interest in or right to property.

 

 

History: 2008, Initiated Law 1, Eff. Dec. 4, 2008 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 512, Eff. Apr. 1, 2013

Compiler's Notes: MCL 333.26430 of Initiated Law 1 of 2008 provides:10. Severability.Sec. 10. Any section of this act being held invalid as to any person or circumstances shall not affect the application of any other section of this act that can be given full effect without the invalid section or application.

 

That is sec. 8 in its entirety. It has been ruled authoritative in State v King, State v Redden, and some other cases. When otherwise compliant people are put into the legal grinder, some of them having been entirely compliant with sec. 4, it has been ruled that those cases be remanded back to the lower courts with instructions to permit the defense. It is real, and keeps on going after registry protections have become useless.

[mibrains]

well said zap.

[GregS]

Why not just put up the four threads, containing several hundred posts, that were censored. I don't want to duplicate the effort again. It is a foregone conclusion that it would only be censored like the rest.

At least two of those threads were started with this as the sole topic, one by me in May or June.

 

And if we're going to play it this way Mi, please uncensor the first post and restore it.

[GregS]

 

I do understand what you are saying here GregS, and I believe I am taking your comments in in the spirit in which they are intended. I also think it is wrong to say that there are no limits in section 8.

 

Section 8 is indeed an important and misunderstood section of the law. So many people think it is an option that "covers" their behavior, and are then surprised that it is 1) expensive, 2) subject to the interpretation and judgement of seemingly corrupt judges, 3) subject to the interpretation of uneducated and/or less-than-impartial jury members. If you think a jury will not convict on a marijuana case, think again. Also, losing a section 8 hearing puts the defendant at an extreme disadvantage with respect to jury instructions.

 

People are also very surprised that the rules change so much from section 4 to section 8, and have little or no remembrance of the ballot language, which was used as the intent of the electorate in the King/Kolanek opinion.

 

Ultimately, there is no good advice for those that are thinking of really relying on section 8, other than get a card, learn section 4, and don't do it. However, even those with cards trying hard to be compliant with section 4 should understand section 8 better, and why the card doesn't do it on its own.

I could not agree more zap. When it comes to the point that the AD becomes necessary good options are limited. But defendants must have all the leverage available to keep themselves from jail, and sec. 4 ain't it..

[mibrains]

we are not playing greg.

 

i don't like it when anyone gets censored or banned.

 

i am doing everything i can think of to ensure you have a chance.

 

what first post?

[GregS]

I highlighted an important statement in red, just so you know you are still wrong.

What is inaccurate about that statement?

 

"Section  8 of the same law has no restrictions on the number of patients a caregiver can have or the number of caregivers a patient can have."

 

"I also think it is wrong to say that there are no limits in section 8."

 

Will you please point out any restriction?

Edited November 12, 2013 by GregS

[GregS]

we are not playing greg.

 

i don't like it when anyone gets censored or banned.

 

i am doing everything i can think of to ensure you have a chance.

 

what first post?

The first post in this thread. Please restore the missing text.

Edited November 12, 2013 by GregS

[mibrains]

oh

i cant do that.

 

  i quoted almost all of it in the next text that i highlighted in red.

 

the first set of xxxx's were you saying "a person can use section 8" or something basic...

 

i replaced the text with xxxx's and those are gone for life.

 

i apologize.

 

next time i will move the statements here and we can discuss them.